After binging Space Time for the past month, this episode was suggested to me today. This morning, I got up at 7 am, tuned in to NASA's livestream and witnessed the successful launch of the James Webb Space Telescope :)
Wow me as a non native speaker was all like "oh seems like i misspelled this word wrongly my whole life long". Turns out im better at it than australians :)
"I can assure you, there is no problem with the intelligence of my hands. Many people have seen them and they all say that they're great hands, the most intelligent hands."
Give NASA the credit so we can continue to fund projects like this. Without them, the flatearthers and fake moon landing nuts would have nothing to do.
User Droid, NASA is not the only agency working on these telescopes. The James Webb Space Telescope for instance is a cooperative effort between NASA, the ESA, and the CSA. That said, I do wish he had mentioned the E-ELT.
LSST! I worked on its filter selection a few years ago!! Now I'm working on... baby pictures! Of galaxy clusters. This video made me happy. Though I cannot help but notice the US-centric bias. JAXA and ESA, in particular, have excellent instruments in the working.
Aria Eddington that's exactly what I noticed. I understand that being made by PBS, there would likely be a US bias, but is a show like Space Time opening minds and educating people about the wonder of space, physics and science really the place to maintain that kind of nationalist bias? Maybe there should be an episode on educating Americans that most of science and most things that happen generally take place outside the US?
MarxistKnight Hah The Dude's jokes aside, the US is indeed at the forefront of research worldwide, and a large fraction of research does take place in the States, but a large chunk does not either. - SKA, the record-smashing multi-radio telescope built between South Africa and Australia, which is breaking the frontiers of data-storage research. - Euclid, which will map the geometry of spacetime with unprecedented BAO and gravitational lensing details. - e-LISA, the spacecraft detector for gravitational waves. - Gaia's results are just coming out, the most detailed explorer to-date of the Milky-Way's environments, chemistry, and star/planetary populations. Just to cite the most ground-breaking. Many US institutions have a hand in these projects too, and vice versa. I understand there's a time limit to videos, but a sentence or two on the existence of these other important projects would have been fair. Maybe they've been or will be mentioned in other videos :)
+Daniel Brownson, with all due respect to Chile, but LSST's funds are mostly NSF/DOE, AURA, or private, mainly from US investors. US tax payers made these telescopes possible, not Chile's. Though the world appreciates they let us build telescopes in their lands.
Another couple video ideas: - Top 10 Things i didn't know about black holes until i got one - Black hole in ultra slow motion - Black hole vs hydraulic press - Dankest black hole memes of 2017 - Black hole captured with a 360° camera - Draw my black hole - "We are number one", but instead of the chorus, there's a black hole - 1000 degree hot knife vs black hole
- Best Black Hole Trick Shots - Black hole eats the world while I play unfitting music - The most satisfying black hole in the world [ODDLY SATISFYING VIDEO 2017]
I love the David Lynch -esque background sound effect during the entire video. I felt like I was watching Twin Peaks while learning about future missions.
+Peter Rabit hahahahaHAHAHAHA made my day! +Arkhavinis yeah mate i know the feeling, and if it explodes on the launchpad or is destroyed somehow i will probably actuallly cry. and even if all goes well we have to wait 5 MONTHS for it to switch its cameras on and even then the first few weeks months will most likely just be testing with no science getting done... sigh!!!
This channel is so amazing! Whenever I see a new upload it never fails to bring a smile to my face. I wish we had more channels like this and Infinite Series, especially about other sciences, such as chemistry!
Thank you, Jelle Slaets for supporting space time, Big old thumbs up! as a young student, I can't do much to support their work therefore what you do by supporting them is also helping me, thanks!
And at one point the JWST was supposed to cost $500,000,000-$1,000,000,000 and launch a decade ago, versus today's, $8,800,000,000 and projected 2018 launch. Point is, in theory/practice the numbers can be true, however due to reality's unpredictable nature, shitty politics, and runaway budgets or errors, you hardly ever end up with the idealistic goals. Basically, you start off cheap an optimistic, and as time progresses and that becomes less and less likely, you readjust. Or even more succinctly, you never start off with your base goal/vision. If in the mid 90s it was said that the JWST would cost $8.8bn and launch nearly 30 years later, it would've never been greenlit. (Although to be fair to the JWST, a lot of that was due to poor management. But that's also part of my point. These things almost never land on target because people are just that, human.)
Huh I just noticed that the Globe image during the intro is using the Mercator projection... Kinda odd, but I can forgive it because of this Great content!
Will It Spaghettify? sounds like a great channel. Even though the answer is always yes, watching how it happens would be interesting for quite a while.
As one of the earliest viewers of "Is it a good idea to microwave this?" which I think was the progenitor of the "Will it...?" style of shows, I loved the final gag (literally laughed out loud). Thanks for giving us a science show that is as geek-culture as we are!
7:00 so THAT'S how it works i assumed the lasers had cameras directly behind them and were observing beam wobbling and feeding that back into the telescope to correct using software. i didn't realize it was a process of physically deforming the mirror and the lasers forming artificial stars as reference points
I doubt that a whole frame - the entire field of view will be in sharp focus. Right now the laser adaptive optics is good for focusing a small point like trying to split a double star but not the whole field. To do a whole field is a giant leap forward. Maybe that's why they are using 6 lasers?
I'm not sure if i should be more impressed about the mathematical ability to undo the wavefront warping by moving the mirrors.... or the actual engineering feat of moving the mirrors fast and precise to keep up with the atmosphere! absolutely awesome!
"Black Hole vs 1000° C knife" "Challenge: Try not to loose sight of this monkey I throw into my black hole" "Funny cats reacting to my black hole pet CUTE FUNNY CAT CATS KITTENS"
Wanted to say you guys are always on point. Always relevant, interesting, and your approach on explaining anything is noticeably well thought out. Not gimmicky, over simplified, nor over complicated. Mad props. thanks to everyone that has funded this series. 😊
A shout-out from west Texas! I work at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) at McDonald Observatory (an early example from 1996, of a large primary mirror achieved with a hexagonal segment design); with our nearly-complete installation of additional hardware for the HET Dark Energy Experiment (HETDEX) and the future installation of Penn State's Habitable Planet Finder hardware, I think we demonstrate the bright future possibilities for older telescopes as well, to be enhanced and upgraded for cutting-edge research.
I'm slightly disappointed no LIGO's were mentioned. The more detectors we have, the more accurately we can pinpoint where the gravitational events happened in the sky. I could be wrong, but I feel gravitational "telescopes" are going to change astronomy a lot more than light based ones. I'm especially looking forward to when they get LIGO's in space with arm lengths orders of magnitude bigger than those on Earth.
@@nmarbletoe8210 The term Telescope seems to be reserved for sensing of electromagnetic radiation. So if a phased array that detects gravitational waves were built, i still don't think it would fit in the category of "telescopes". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope
Excellent episode ! Spelling tip for whomever does the titling : the word _sheer_ as in _sheer size_ takes two 'e's (the spelling _shear_ refers to sheep scissors or to a mathematical 'tilt').
GMT is scheduled for first light a few years earlier than E-ELT, making it the first in the extremely large telescope family. This episode is "Telescopes of Tomorrow", not "Telescopes of the Day After Tomorrow"! Perhaps we'll do a stand-alone on E-ELT at some point.
PBS Space Time The sheer size benefit the E-ELT has over the GMT is worth at least an honourable mention. 25m telescope in 2021 vs 39m telescope in 2024. Good times for astronomers.
6:46 The self correcting, wavy mirror using various lasers to create reference lights 90km up in the sky to figure out how much real-time counter-adjusting the wavy mirror has to do - this is fantastic! It seems to me these guys are playing a different ball game.
The new telescope technologies are mind blowing to say the least. I can't imagine the minds of these engineers that get such complex machines built. I can't even imagine where it all goes from here, let alone try and build one. Hats off to you scientists. At least I'll get to see the results in my lifetime!
Aria Eddington There is a difference between being ungrateful and concerned. i am concerned because I wouldnt want my favourite RU-vid channel to stop uploading. i want it to last forever. it seems to me like they may be running low on funds.
I wouldn't worry about funds with soon to be 1 million subscribers, patreon and the dislike bar looking like this. Its probably because they have actual work to do and youtube is just a side thing.
Could you make a video (series) on the holographic principle? Given how much you've already discussed about black holes, you could give us a good in-depth understanding of the idea.
Almost all of us have these questions: 1. How do you know that a light is actually blueshifted/redshifted ? what if its original wavelength itself is that much ? (If you are going to say spectrum of elements inside the star is known and hence we calculate the shift, but isn't it the other way around ? we find the composition of a star first, by observing the star spectrum! which may be shifted ! how do we know its not shifted or is shifted ?) 2. How do you know the absolute luminosity of a Star ? or any other object in distant space for that matter ? 3. What if there are no "true" black holes ? new evidence discovered by NASA strongly point towards the MECO theory, Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects. Which are possible instead of Black Holes. Here is a link : NASA finding Bolsters MECO theory of Black Hole www.ndtv.com/world-news/nasa-finding-bolsters-indian-theory-on-black-hole-1247000 4. We always wonder how astrophysicist at Space Agencies are able to monitor billions of stars and distinguish each and every one of them correctly as well as document them ? 5. When the universe (all the matter and energy) was concentrated at a single point before the Big Bang...why didn't that singularity did not form a black hole instead of exploded as it did ? Does this mean at the scale of singularity there is an entirely new fundamental force (say, mother of 4 fundamental forces) which was vastly more powerful than gravity which made the singularity explode ? Or we are living in a universe which is inside a black hole? 6. What if there is neither a dark energy nor dark matter ? does that mean then the Einstein theory of general relativity is terribly incomplete ? or maybe worse, entirely wrong and we just see too much shallow into the universe ? 7. Graviton is predicted to exist, just like the higgs boson, suppose we discover graviton. Then can we one day manipulate Gravity at our will ? 8. We find no evidence of alien life in this whole 93 billion light years wide universe, other than ourselves. This strongly point towards us being in a simulation (not a computer simulation, just analogous to it), please start a contest to ask people to submit their ideas about how can we prove that we are Real or Simulation. That would be awesome! who knows we might get to know an entirely new idea or theory/test from people! Thanks! A video(s) covering all this would be fantastic!!! Thanks
No scientific theory is wrong, it wouldn't be a theory if it were ... 1. astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12264/how-do-we-know-that-light-is-redshifted-blueshifted-and-not-the-original-light-o 2. www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s4.htm 3. calling MECO a theory is a disgrace to science google the next answers, not that hard ... and the answer to 8. is "we can't be a simulated universe, the number PI, alone, disproves that hypothesis"
1. You match spectra of stars. When you do that, there are dips at some frequencies. When light gets shifted, those dips are shifted as well. At the same time, they are unique enough to be sure that they were shifted and not that they are dips due to some other elements. 2. You don’t, at least not in general, which is a problem when measuring distance. Luminosity of type I supernovae is known because it can be calculated but in other situations you have to rely on other sources of information. For example, you can use parallax to calculate distance to the star and then go from observed luminosity to intrinsic luminosity. 4. Stars don’t really move on the sky that much. Just agree on some coordinate system and you can point to any star by their coordinates. 5. It didn’t explode. It started expanding. 6. GR does not need dark energy or dark matter. At the same time GR is incomplete since it does not work well with quantum theory (quantum gravity is a holly grail at the moment). Also, there are quite convincing reasons to think that dark energy and dark matter do exist so they probably do exist in some form. If not as ‘a thing’ it could be ‘a force’ or some other phenomenon. 7. My bet is that even if it was possible, the energy required to do anything useful would be preposterous and inpractical. 8. We barely looked anywhere. It’s like going to a desert, looking around for five minutes and proclaiming ‘no, there’s no life on this desert’.
1) The spectrums of all known elements are known. Also, it lines up very well at every range, while you'd need different compositions of unknown elements for every different distance for stars to explain it. 2) For "close" stars, you can use parallax. Then, with spectroscopy and a bolometer (and a bit of math) you can calculate all you want to know about the star. 3) Don't believe everything said by some physicist promoting his own papers in a random blog. They are usualy bending the truth, like "this is a proof of my theory" when his own theory doesn't fit with tons of other observations. 4) Do you want to monitor billions of stars ? Monitor a Galaxy. More seriously, computers do it. Computers analyse petabytes of data and point out the changes. 5) This is highly technical. To keep it simple, when the Universe was really small and young, the expansion was so fast that most parts had no time to interract. And even at t=0, in an uniform space you can put as much matter/energy as you wish without forming a black hole. If every point is the same, you don't have a "canter" to collapse. 6) GR is incomplete. It doesn't work at small scales. But this is a bad question, you have a misconception of matter as "stuff" while matter and energy are described as "things that cause spacetime's curvature". We observe a curvature somewhere, we don't see anythyng : we call the culprit "dark" (because we don't see anything) matter/energy. By definition of these concepts, they exist, they are defined as the consequence of an observation. 7) No. We discovered neutrinos decades ago, we still have issue to use them. 8) Looking at the stars is looking in the past. We see galaxies as they were thousands (Magellan Clouds)/millions (local group)/billions years ago. We cannot detect if a planet a few light-years away emits some kind of radiation, so wwe have no clues at all for other galaxies. We are limited to nearby stars.
Morning Madera, maybe it doesn’t and that’s where quantum fluctuations come from? Computer calculates the simulation with limited precision and all of the rounding errors appear to entities inside of the simulation as quantum fluctuations.
Thank you so much PBS Space Time, for all of the videos you put out. They are truly appreciated and coming from a guy like me, who is still trying to figure out where he fits in in this world, they come as a great relief. These videos are not only educational, but powerful in the sense that they teach me greatly about knowledge and how it can be presented and shared. Keep it up! Much love always
I saw it: the font of the second 'E' in "SHEER" is obviously a fix, they pasted the 'E' over an 'A' which was a typo, I guess, but didn't match the original font.
2 Months ago I went to Kennedy spacecentrum in Florida. They had a Nice tour about this subject. Beside that I recommend the history of the space telescopes by looking at the Stubby Hubble.
I just love this channel so much I love the topics I love the explanations I love the little jokes here and there I love the host, he's awesome I love the intro music and animation I love the outro and outro music 👏👏💪👌👊💥🔥🎉🎊
A little over 10 years ago, I worked on a big report about the JWST for an earth sciences course I was taking at uni... can't tell you how stoked I am for it to begin sending pictures back 😊
This has to be one of my favourite episodes so far. Question: If the James Webb telescope is at the Lagrange point, won't it be impossible to repair due to its distance?
Robin Yup - no hope of getting out there to fix it. It'll be able to move its mirrors to get a good focus, so we won't have to worry about the problem we had with Hubble. Other than that, we basically just need to hope it doesn't break! It has a much shorter lifespan anyway, so there's less time for it to break :P
5:12 correction: GMT should have 104 times bigger light gathering surface compared to HST. If HST would stand in front of GMT, it woudn't be even noticable because it could almost fit into centrally obstructed area
Your videos are absolutely wonderful ! Please keep up the good work... Also towards the end of your videos could you please suggest a few relevant books for further reading, particularly for the general public who cant deal with the complex mathematics...
dude, You're awesome. I wanna buy you a beer, and talk Space for Days..... Thank you for taking the time and the massive effort it takes to make these videos bringing Advanced education to the MASSES without the cost of tuition!!
As for radio telescope, there is the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) project (to be build in South Africa and Australia) which seems to be very promising.
Aha I knew there was something to the little clip you guys showed in one of the other videos of a observatory that shined some sort of yellow laser in the sky, knew better than to ask what it was! Thx PBS 👍
great video, iam so hyped for JWST launch next year, i never heard about the LSST before, u missed two important ones too the VLT and the 30 meter telescope
